The name isn’t deceptive. It is deliberate.

Yes, it is against Trump, but the reason is because Trump is behaving like a modern day, wannabe King/dictator.

The “right wing” literally is the party of “preserving the norms and authority structures that gave power to the monarchy”.

“Licking boots” is a foundational tenant of right-wing ideology.

We don’t need the causal homophobic insults. That’s their weapon, not ours.

There is nothing insulting about licking dicks if that’s someone’s thing.

Bare minimum should be assault & battery with a deadly weapon.

Yes, we already do, it’s called “housing code inspection”. If you register a vehicle, the home would be inspected to register a space for parking that vehicle. You either have it or you don’t. If you do, it is registered to that property. If you don’t, gotta go find one.

Bigger families would purchase more spaces, since they use more space. Fair is fair.

You just wouldn’t allow multiple cars to be registered at the same parking space. You would need to own additional parking for each additional vehicle. Otherwise you don’t get to register additional vehicles.

The issue here is that for those things you suggested to exist we would inherently need to reduce parking as part of the change in regulation. Parking spaces are currently taking up the spaces that those amenities would be built, just as you described.

Unfortunately, NIMBY fools hear “reduce parking” and completely turn their brains off to screech about it, without ever considering the rest of the proposal and what it would do to benefit the community, simply because it makes them change their habits and they don’t want to.

Like, yes, there will be parking shortages, but that’s kinda the point so that people have to utilize alternatives instead.

Just saw the video from “Not Just Bikes” a few days ago on this exact topic.

The biggest middle finger is that everyone of the people behind these projects knew it would become too expensive to maintain but they all decided it wasn’t their problem to solve cause by then they would be long since retired from their position by the time it became a relevant issue.

Ya know, fair point. Living in the US Deep South, I also see a bunch of big trucks deliberately try to bully cyclists and even motorcycles off the road.

You mean being able to have the confidence that you can ride a bike without being subjected potential bodily harm at the hands of an apathetic drivers means more people will choose to ride their bike?

Color me shook.

They do that shit on purpose to piss off the car behind them for daring to “tailgate”. I’ve had former friends and family who brag about it.

Literally putting a random person’s life on the line for a small bit of petty revenge at a perceived slight.

Goddamn that’s beautiful.

They would need the ability to think critically to understand how it reduces traffic. Sadly, they can’t think beyond two steps in front of their own faces.

Seriously, like has that dude never heard of a NIMBY?

Drivers fight tooth and nail to prevent anything from being implemented if it means they incur even the most mild of inconvenience.